[ncc-services-wg] Should we have a RIPE archivist?

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 09:21:03AM +0000, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:13:47AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 01:32:23PM +0430, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> > > -1,
> > > 
> > > It doesn't make  sense to me at this stage.
> > 
> > Why, exactly?  In Address-Policy, for example, many of the current policies
> > go back to discussions we had years and years ago.  So having more easily
> > accessible archives of "old discussions" would help newcomers to understand
> > better why things evolved the way they did...
> 
> If APWG feels there is a need to guide newcomers, APWG can write a FAQ
> or newcomers document themselves. This should be a working group
> activity.

I was just pointing out one example where Arash, as an active APWG 
participant, could see benefit in having easy access to old discussions.

Doing this WG by WG does not seem like reasonable use of WG resources.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20180427/2287c5cb/attachment.sig>